Joe Rogan, Colion Noir, and gun control

a reply to: projectvxn

Popi Chulo killed me.

originally posted by: CB328
How do his beliefs change the fact that guns are deadly weapons and many people can't be trusted with them?

Since you clearly haven't watched the video, I'm not sure how you feel qualified to talk about his beliefs.

And thus we see, in glaring form, one of the biggest issues of the gun debate: uneducated people who are unwilling to take the time to educate themselves speaking as if they're educated about the subject at hand.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I can handle the emotional part of it, it's more the shrillness that creeps into their arguments that I can't get past.

originally posted by: CB328
How do his beliefs change the fact that guns are deadly weapons and many people can't be trusted with them?

That line of reasoning can be applied to many aspects/objects.

It's the intent of the people that have them that is the problem.

That being said, I'd have to listen to the video to hear what is said about the mental health aspect in order to find out if this guy is making reasonable points, or if he uses it as a general point of dismissal, as is usually the case among so-called 2nd amendment supporters.

uneducated people who are unwilling to take the time to educate themselves

I am highly educated and I know quite a bit about guns and gun violence. It's the gun worshippers who are uneducated and refuse to accept reality.

originally posted by: CB328

uneducated people who are unwilling to take the time to educate themselves

I am highly educated and I know quite a bit about guns and gun violence. It's the gun worshippers who are uneducated and refuse to accept reality.

He said, while trying to talk about a video he hasn't watched.

a reply to: introvert

He doesn't. He point blank says "crazy people" shouldn't have firearms. And he point blank says he doesn't have an answer for fixing the problem of crazy people getting firearms.

But he's not a supporter of violating due process in an effort to achieve it, either.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

He doesn't. He point blank says "crazy people" shouldn't have firearms. And he point blank says he doesn't have an answer for fixing the problem of crazy people getting firearms.

But he's not a supporter of violating due process in an effort to achieve it, either.

I would completely agree with that. Crazy people do not need to have firearms and we should never violate due process, regardless of the issue involved.

That being said, the mental health aspect presents a problem for many so-called 2nd amendment supporters. By definition, if we do not allow crazy people the right to bear arms, we are infringing on their 2nd amendment right. The constitution does not make any specific caveats in regards to arms and the mental health of the people.

So either we have to take a literal approach to the 2nd amendment and allow crazy people the same right to bear arms, or we have to accept that the right is conditional, based on what is acceptable to the people themselves or the rights of the individual states to regulate as needed.

a reply to: introvert

I'm not one of those that thinks everybody should be able to own whatever they want, so you'll get no argument from me.

How do we ensure the crazies don't get guns? I don't have the answer to that question. But it sure is nice to be able to discuss it without the hysterical rantings from either side taking over.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not one of those that thinks everybody should be able to own whatever they want, so you'll get no argument from me.

I find that to be a common opinion. There are some people that should not have access to firearms. For the safety of the public and for their own safety.

How do we ensure the crazies don't get guns? I don't have the answer to that question. But it sure is nice to be able to discuss it without the hysterical rantings from either side taking over.

I think the answer lies with the people within the states to decide what they find acceptable, but one thing is for certain. Neither extreme, both those with the opinion that say we need to ban all firearms and those that espouse the "shall not infringe" whatsoever argument, is reasonable in the slightest and I would even go as far to say that neither is constitutional.

originally posted by: CB328

uneducated people who are unwilling to take the time to educate themselves

I am highly educated and I know quite a bit about guns and gun violence. It's the gun worshippers who are uneducated and refuse to accept reality.

You've never displayed any understanding of firearms.

originally posted by: CB328

uneducated people who are unwilling to take the time to educate themselves

I am highly educated and I know quite a bit about guns and gun violence. It's the gun worshippers who are uneducated and refuse to accept reality.

A statement of absurdity that will not be topped today.

Ive yet to see this high education be used on this topic.

a reply to: introvert

How is an argument quoting the words of tue constitution itself unconstitutional?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

How is an argument quoting the words of tue constitution itself unconstitutional?

The argument itself is not unconstitutional, but I believe the position may be due to the idea that the constitution is a limit of the reach of the federal government and all other powers are relegated to the states.

Meaning that the "shall not infringe" argument only applies to the federal government and does not remotely even begin to consider the rights of the states to regulate as they see fit.

By definition, states infringe on our rights by requiring people meet certain standards to purchase/carry a firearm.

a reply to: introvert

Supremacy Clause details that if it is not expressly reserved for the states, the default is the federal government. the bill of rights are not something expressly reserved for the states to determine (i.e., the state of Oklahoma cannot force you to let their militia crash on the couch).

im not a fan of the supremacy clause, being antifederalist. but live by the sword, die by the sword i guess.